POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

It's easier to put the disjointed pieces together by reading the transcript. Leaving out all the um's and searching for the right words, it breaks down like this:

Roosevelt: coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27. . . and it looks like . . . that plane was heading . . . southwest.

The purple-ish path is what Roosevelt surmised from what he saw - the plane flying away to the south-west.The red path combines what the north path witnesses saw and what Roosevelt saw.The radius is about 330 feet. (?)

It's unlikely that Hani chickened out at the last second so let's assume somebody in the E4B was "flying" the 757 [or 737]. Assuming no pilot, can a 757 or 737 handle the g-forces to make that turn at a speed sufficient to stay in the air while making that turn?

Your interpretation is not what he is describing. Yes he was confused regarding cardinal directions while relaying this over the phone during an off-the-cuff, surprise interview while he was driving. That is typical for any human and to be expected.

But when he used landmarks it tells a different story.

"coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC"

And then later:

It seemed like it came from, um. . . southwest-lookin- the same way it came in, or appeared that it came in, it seemed like it was southwe- (indistinguishable) came in. . . uh. . . almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction.

So the plane came from the alleged impact side where he thought the "first plane" "flew into the Pentagon". This is clear. Yet he called that "southwest" and the blast site is NOT southwest of him.That's because he was confused when relaying cardinal directions during an off the cuff interview which is quite normal.

No big deal.

And then when asked about where it banked the LANDMARK he used was the Mall entrance side.

Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around

Again that is not southwest, it is north.

We have said from day one that Roosevelt's account is not 100% clear and we regret that he clammed up after he got scared and backed out of the on-camera interview he later promised.

But for YOU to parse his words and poke holes in what is admittedly not perfect testimony can be for no other purpose but to suggest he completely fabricated his account and is LYING even though he is corroborated by ALL the north side witnesses who prove with scientific fact that the plane did not hit.

Deal with it Sarns.

The north side approach is 100% scientific proof that the plane did not cause the physical damage.

This is why no pilot, expert, researcher, or CIT detractor on earth who has ever published ANYTHING on this issue has contested this fact.

You are unreasonably scrutinizing Roosevelt's memory of what would be a VERY confusing and difficult situation to remember and relay accurately for ANYONE.

But the fact is that a flyover is 100% proven by the Citgo station witnesses alone.

And then when asked about where it banked the LANDMARK he used was the Mall entrance side.

Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around

Again that is not southwest, it is north.

For some reason, CIT detractors love to ignore this point when taking such an impromptu interview so literally.

Chris, if you are going to take such an interview so literally, you need to draw a new path taking the aircraft "over on the mall entrance side" and then turn.

Bottom line, Roberts describes an aircraft flying low and away immediately after the explosion. This is cause for serious further inquiry considering all the North Flight Path independently corroborated witness statements and statements made by Eric D to the CMH also explaining an aircraft "kept flying after the explosion".

Keep in mind, if you accept the north flight path statements, any type of aircraft could have been used, including classified military technology, leaving the possibilities numerous, perhaps endless, and therefore speculation. The North approach is not limited to 757 (or 737) performance as required for the south path.

Thank you for your reply. You answered my question. At 14:48 in the video it establishes the north path is aerodynamically possible. The radius is 5,090 feet. However, it leaves the Pentagon on the south-EAST side headed south-EAST.

Roosevelt only saw the plane as it was flying away so he was just guessing which way it approached. [over the Mall side]

All that matters is which way it flew away.

Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-WEST.

Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest.

Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one?

Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one.

Lane one is at the west end of the south parking lot, the Highway 27 side.

A plane on the north path could not turn and head south-west as he stated.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 2 2009, 05:35 PM)

For some reason, CIT detractors love to ignore this point when taking such an impromptu interview so literally.

Chris, if you are going to take such an interview so literally, you need to draw a new path taking the aircraft "over on the mall entrance side" and then turn.

Bottom line, Roberts describes an aircraft flying low and away immediately after the explosion. This is cause for serious further inquiry considering all the North Flight Path independently corroborated witness statements and statements made by Eric D to the CMH also explaining an aircraft "kept flying after the explosion".

Keep in mind, if you accept the north flight path statements, any type of aircraft could have been used, including classified military technology, leaving the possibilities numerous, perhaps endless, and therefore speculation. The North approach is not limited to 757 (or 737) performance as required for the south path.

Landmarks trump cardinal direction every time when dealing with witnesses, or even pilots, especially in an informal setting. I cant count how many times i have heard other pilots/ATC.. .etc... say southwest when they meant southeast. Northwest when they meant northeast... ."Traffic 9 O'clock" when they meant "3 o'clock"... and so on... Its an honest mistake.

Ever gotten directions from a friend? Ever heard them say "turn left" when they meant right? Or, "We are on the east side of the highway", when they really are on the west side?

To take Roberts statement of "southwest" in an interview on a cell phone while he was driving as literal.. while ignoring his landmark statements is intellectually dishonest or cherry picking to fit an already established belief/agenda.

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 03:02 PM)

A plane on the north path could not turn and head south-west as he stated.

Sure "a plane" can. It depends on the type aircraft and perhaps any classified military technology involved.

Again,

...if you accept the north flight path statements, any type of aircraft could have been used, including classified military technology, leaving the possibilities numerous, perhaps endless, and therefore speculation. The North approach is not limited to 757 (or 737) performance as required for the south path.

(i bolded it this time as it appears you missed it the first time and in the video...)

Since Roberts refused a second meeting to clarify statements, his most important statement at this time is the fact he vividly remembers observing an aircraft immediately AFTER the explosion. This is fatal to the govt story. Some CIT detractors feel we should ignore this altogether. I understand why they feel that way. Unfortunately for the detractors, "Nothing to see here folks, move along" doesnt sit well with real truth seekers.

There was a problem with communication. When Aldo asked:Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed?

Roosevelt told him where it was coming from.Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway.

Then he describes where it he saw it.Roosevelt: If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27. He is describing the south west corner of the south parking lot where the exit from 395 goes into the south parking lot at the south-west corner.

Aldo had to ask him again:Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?

Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please?

Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this second plane,-?

Roosevelt: Right.

Aldo: -wh- do you remember which-

Roosevelt: Right.

And again:Aldo: -which direction it was heading?

Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.

That's clear. The plane flew away to the south-west back across Highway 27.

* * * * *He said it flew to the Mall entrance side after Aldo was asking him where it flew AWAY.No. Aldo asked him where it turned around.Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.

It flew over the mall before it turned around and then headed south-west away from the Pentagon.

He described it coming FROM the alleged impact (yet mistakenly described that as being from the southwest) and banking around TO the Mall entrance (and also mistook that as being southwest).He was clearly incorrect when relaying cardinal directions because NEITHER of those landmarks were southwest of him, while BOTH were actually north or northwest of him.[i]He did not describe the impact zone or the mall as being to the south-west nor did he say banking around TO the mall.

But that's ok because witnesses are subjective and typically fallible and his account of a plane flying away AT ALL supports the flyover and is corroborated by all north side approach witnesses.He saw the plane fly away to the south-west.

Why are you accusing Roosevelt of being a liar?Quite the contrary, I'm taking his statement at face value.

Why are you accusing Roosevelt of being a liar?Quite the contrary, I'm taking his statement at face value.

Ok then if you take his statement that he saw a plane AT ALL at "face value" you have no choice but to accept that he is ultimate corroboration for the flyover that has already been scientifically proven by the north side witnesses alone.

To unnecessarily scrutinize what parts of the flight path he is describing may be fallible or not has no relevance to the FACT that he saw the plane flying away at all.

Why are you so hell bent on casting doubt on this witness and what is your contention about his account if you refuse to accept the fact that he corroborates the north side witnesses who prove a flyover?

Ok then if you take his statement that he saw a plane AT ALL at "face value" you have no choice but to accept that he is ultimate corroboration for the flyover

NO! He is NOT corroboration, quite the contrary. He said the plane flew away to the south-west over lane one in the south west corner of the south parking lot like I drew it.

QUOTE

that has already been scientifically proven by the north side witnesses alone.

The north path witnesses do NOT prove flyover. That is based on an assumption that the plane would have to cause all the damage and that is not necessary. The other damage was caused by explosives. Your theory requires all the damage to be caused by explosives so why not just part of the damage?

QUOTE

To unnecessarily scrutinize what parts of the flight path he is describing may be fallible or not has no relevance to the FACT that he saw the plane flying away at all.

I know you would like to ignore this inconvenient truth but where and in which direction he saw it fly away proves it could not be the airplane approaching on the north path.

QUOTE

Why are you so hell bent on casting doubt on this witness

You're the one casting doubt on your own witness.

QUOTE

and what is your contention about his account if you refuse to accept the fact that he corroborates the north side witnesses who prove a flyover?

He does NOT corroborate the north flight path and the north flight path witnesses do not corroborate anything but the north flight path.

Flying into south parking it would have been going south and then after making its u-turn to the mall entrance side would make it west. That could very well be what he meant by "south-west".

Regardless, the only plane it could be is the flyover plane. Either that or the C-130 and I called him back and confirmed the hell out what he saw, even informing him of the presence of the C-130 with propellors a few minutes after the explosion. He was sure that was not what he saw.

So I don't know what your purpose, nor do I understand where you get off trying to discredit witnesses that prove a flyover but debunk your silly and completely impossible NoC+impact theory. You may as well go after the north side flight path witnesses also, because guess what? They certainly prove the plane did not hit the building, as much as you want it to hit for some strange reason.

But he also said that the impact point was southwest of him and that the mall entrance side was southwest of him.

He was clearly incorrect regarding southwest, a cardinal direction that is difficult for ANYONE to relay over the phone while driving and trying to remember specific details of a very complex and confusing event.

Witnesses are fallible Chris.

If you believe he saw a plane at all you believe he saw a flyover.

If you don't you are calling him a liar and are forced to present your own hypothesis to explain the north side accounts.

We already know that your own hypothesis is proven false by the physical evidence.

There is no physical evidence for an exploding 737 such as a massive crater in the ground in front of the building.

Let go of your ego and your pathetic stubborn bullheadedness for once and deal with the facts.

CIT comes up with hard evidence proving an inside job, but Chris Sarns, armchair researcher and investigator deems it important to waste valuable time trying to interject HIS theory. HIS opinion.

K now what, Chris? The plane flew on the north side and then magically hit the building (while we ignore the gate cam video and directional damage disproving this nonsense). What are you doing about getting the evidence of the staged poles in front of people?

You've got some nerve going around calling CIT "incompetent" (as I saw you called us on blogger) as you spend countless hours poring over our research and the eyewitness testimony we collected. Research and testimony you would have never had if it weren't for us. Gotta love monday morning quarterbacks coming in to TELL US what really happened as they sit comfortably behind their monitor never setting foot in Arlington or in front of an actual eyewitness.

Let me repeat it...

A plane approaching on the north side of the gas station cannot hit the 5 light poles, show up low and level as seen in the dubious gate cam frames, hit the gen trailer with its right engine, and cause the directional damage leading to the C-ring hole. This is FACT. You can't change this.

The north path witnesses do NOT prove flyover. That is based on an assumption that the plane would have to cause all the damage and that is not necessary.

Yes it is necessary for the plane to cause damage if it hit because planes don't disappear.

Even if they have bombs in them.

QUOTE

The other damage was caused by explosives. Your theory requires all the damage to be caused by explosives so why not just part of the damage?

Because NONE of the damage could have been caused by an exploding plane on the north side.

NONE of it.

Not the light poles, generator trailer, facade damage, or the C-ring hole.

Plus there is no physical evidence for an exploding plane.Your ridiculous exploding plane bomb theory is fatally contradicted by the lack of debris and lack of a massive crater in front of the building.

What do you not understand here?

Stop it with your relentless and ignorant personal campaign against us.

Stop speaking for Richard Gage and stop misrepresenting this information and spending all your time trying to obfuscate and create the impression there is a debate here.

Go back to making yourself feel useful by focusing all your attention on WTC7 again.

I'm sure you do a great job convincing people of the obvious but you have proven yourself an obstinate buffoon when it comes to real research and investigation concerning the Pentagon attack.

You have accused us of CONNING Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, and many more while posturing yourself as somehow smarter than all of them and able to see right through our evil plot.

You are not smarter than any of them and you have not shown yourself to even have basic common sense.It is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage and there is ZERO evidence that a plane exploded at ground level just outside the facade.

THINK ABOUT THAT.

Stop being such a bullheaded fool and realize that NONE of the published CIT detractors will back you on your idiotic north side impact theory and in fact pretty much all of them have already admitted that a north side approach proves a flyover.

You are not a researcher nor a studied individual on this information.

When I called you in July you had not even viewed National Security Alert.

But it only took one day before you were emotionally flying off the handle and making THREATS against us on behalf of Richard Gage DEMANDING that we remove our statements in NSA that a north side approach proves a flyover.

It's clear that you are not an emotionally stable individual and your reputation for your inability to control your emotions and communicate like a reasonable adult is well known.

A plane approaching on the north side of the gas station cannot hit the 5 light poles, show up low and level as seen in the dubious gate cam frames, hit the gen trailer with its right engine, and cause the directional damage leading to the C-ring hole. This is FACT.